4 ms·

Few people outside of Manhattan picture a home as an office building with a doorman. A few (closer to 20 now that I looked) years ago, Atlanta had a mini-boom o

Few people outside of Manhattan picture a home as an office building with a doorman. A few (closer to 20 now that I looked) years ago, Atlanta had a mini-boom of hi-rise condo building. A couple of the properties did very well; they were mostly pre-sold, though probably to speculators. Some of the others had trouble selling all their units. Going vertical also brings a problem, mentioned by another commentor, of "viewing" rights (i.e. no blocking the views of established properties.) I think Trump had a similar problem with one of his projects.

arjunnarayan 10y ago
There's an easy solution to this: remove all notion of "viewing rights". You have no right to your view, or your lack of density, or any such NIMBY invented property rights. This works great for Tokyo, and housing prices are very cheap. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c...
- jandrese 10y ago
  NIMBY types vote. You try telling them that someone can put up a hideous skyscraper between their house and the mountains/ocean/etc... and they'll have you on your ass in the street come November. Their parents bought that house. They've lived in it all their lives. Now you want to ruin the view and gentrify the neighborhood just because you think single family detached homes have no business being within a mile of the city center? Half of the legislature lives in those neighborhoods! All you are going to do is attract undesirables anyway.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    If viewing rights exist they should be taxed (at a premium). The valuation should be greater than the loss of all the affected height-lines.
    - arjunnarayan 10y ago
      Easier still to take the Coasian view. Viewing rights (by default) do not exist. You are free to side contract with other property owners to ensure your viewing rights by paying them.
      - jandrese 10y ago
        That's a risky position IMHO. You create a situation where it becomes profitable to threaten to erect a tall structure in order to extort money from the neighbors.
glup 10y ago
Seems like honeycombs / interior courtyards provide a pretty decent solution to the viewing rights problem, at least to the 4-6 floor range (e.g. Berlin, Paris). If the buildings are aesthetically pleasing and appropriately spaced, the limit comes down to sunlight.

arjunnarayan 10y ago

There's an easy solution to this: remove all notion of "viewing rights". You have no right to your view, or your lack of density, or any such NIMBY invented property rights. This works great for Tokyo, and housing prices are very cheap. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c...

jandrese 10y ago
NIMBY types vote. You try telling them that someone can put up a hideous skyscraper between their house and the mountains/ocean/etc... and they'll have you on your ass in the street come November. Their parents bought that house. They've lived in it all their lives. Now you want to ruin the view and gentrify the neighborhood just because you think single family detached homes have no business being within a mile of the city center? Half of the legislature lives in those neighborhoods! All you are going to do is attract undesirables anyway.
- mjevans 10y ago
  If viewing rights exist they should be taxed (at a premium). The valuation should be greater than the loss of all the affected height-lines.
  - arjunnarayan 10y ago
    Easier still to take the Coasian view. Viewing rights (by default) do not exist. You are free to side contract with other property owners to ensure your viewing rights by paying them.
    - jandrese 10y ago
      That's a risky position IMHO. You create a situation where it becomes profitable to threaten to erect a tall structure in order to extort money from the neighbors.

glup 10y ago

Seems like honeycombs / interior courtyards provide a pretty decent solution to the viewing rights problem, at least to the 4-6 floor range (e.g. Berlin, Paris). If the buildings are aesthetically pleasing and appropriately spaced, the limit comes down to sunlight.